Can you debunk Carl Munck?

Question

Please use math examples :) "he's a nut" or "pyramidiots all!" don't count. Sure, he's a nut and EVERYTHING he says might not be true, but he appears to be onto something legitimate. eg. Number of stones in the original stonehenge circle (60) x number of degrees in a circle (360) = 21,600. That number factors out exactly to the latitude of stonehenge... which I doublechecked with easy to find mapping software. It's generally accepted that stonehenge was laid out with some astronomical precision. Latitude can be calculated using astronomical observation. It's far from being impossible that they did what Munck is suggesting. I concede that he may have taken his theory too far but that does not debunk the basic premise.

Answer 1

Sure. The more important thing is to understand why you should be skeptical of such things in general; but in this case, it's also easy to debunk the specific claims, because the numbers don't even work out the way he claims.



Carl Munck says that Stonehenge originally had 60 stones in the circle, counting uprights and lintels. He then multiplies this by 360 to get 21,600 and says that this factors into the precise latitude of Stonehenge, 51 degrees 10 minutes 42.353 seconds. That sounds pretty good, except that the center of Stonehenge is at 51 degrees 10 minutes 43.84 seconds. And if you multiply these together, you get 22,358.4. Now divide this by 360 degrees, and you get 62. Not 60! So I guess the ancient druids got it wrong, they should have used 62 stones. Or maybe Munck didn't account for continental drift? Either way, the thing that he says is an exact match -- is actually not a match at all.



In general, you can always make impressive-sounding numerical coincidences if you have enough numbers to work with. Stonehenge has 30 uprights and 30 lintels in the circle, 10 uprights and 5 lintels in the horseshoe. So you could just as well use 60, 30, 10, 5, 15, 40 (total uprights), 35 (total lintels), 75 (total stones), or 76 (counting the heel stone). And throw in 360 degrees in a circle, 365 days in a year, 28 days in a month, 24 hours in a day, 7 classical planets, etc., and pretty soon you've got hundreds of numbers to play with, combined in hundreds of thousands of ways. If you're clever, you can probably make them match your telephone number. If you fudge the numbers a little bit (like the latitude of Stonehenge), it's even easier. If you take the 76 total Stones in Stonehenge, multiply by 365 days in a year, and divide by 7 classical planets, you get 3963. This very special number is the radius of the Earth in miles! Does it mean that the builders of Stonehenge used miles and knew the precise radius of the Earth? No! It only means that I tried putting numbers together until I got a set that worked out. Exactly the same thing Carl Munck did.



Response to additional details:

I don't know where you got your latitude; you can verify on Google Maps, Bing, etc. that the center of the circle is at 43.8 seconds, not 42 seconds. Again, this is the center of the circle, not the street address. In any case, the larger point remains that given enough unrelated numbers, you can always put them together in such a way that there appears to be a deep connection between them.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

OK so now let people think about the question you just asked, think long and hard. Who says there are 360 degrees in a circle? why not 100 or 500 for that matter. So let's say the builders of Stonehenge independently came up with the idea of dividing a circle in to 360, why should they? In fact it looks as though there were 30 degrees in the Neolithic circle from the evidence at Stonehenge or maybe 56 (the number of Aubrey Holes). the idea of a base 60 numerical system, as you say is Babylonian, so that's fine then, the builders of Stonehenge adopted the Babylonian system, how exactly? Well if they had access to ancient Babylonian knowledge of geometry that’s very important (did you know the Babylonians knew Pythagoras’s theorem thousands of years before he came up with the notion?). If they had access to that they must have had access to other ideas and technological knowledge, and building skills.....!



It seems to me that that the latest interpretation is correct, all they did was use simple geometry to space out the supports for the lintels, the centres of each inner face are amazingly accurate to a 30-gon (check for yourselves, the is an accurate plan on Wiki). How and why? it's because they started off with a hexagon, the same radial string that was used to mark out the circle, the radius fixes -dead accurately six of the group - there are many ways afterwards you could use more simple geometry to fill in the spaces. Forget alignments, forget 'astronomy' it's so simple it's untrue, look at the numbers, 6, 5, 10, 30 square and circle geometry nothing more, yes there is an alignment, just one - the geometric axis of symmetry, that is the midwinter-midsummer sunset -sunrise, but whatever, let people believe what they want, most wont think for themselves anyway.

Answer 4

It is funny that the number does in fact land on Stonehenge. Yet just because it is not the precise center 12,000 years later you find fault with the answer. This does not qualify as debunking. If it completely missed stonehenge all together that would be debunking. The fact that it does in fact lie within the original outer perimeter of the structure and seems to point to the small gap in said perimeter at about the 270 degree point which also points to a decimal shift to 2700 to find Go Low in Bonn Germany only serves to solidify the method rather than debunk it.

Answer 5

Carl Munck

Answer 6

Carl P Munck is a prophet of our time. An absolute Goliath of a man. A paladin. To question his findings with the above ignorance is disgraceful. The evidence is so richly woven there's no room for doubt.

No-one will ever "debunk" the code. It's fact. It's obvious. it's mathematics.

Munck presented his findings after decades of isolated study, with handwritten documents and a slide projector. There's no money to be made here. Who would the man be fooling other than himself?

What he's given us is Nobel worthy. A visionary and a saint, we've finally re-obtained the knowledge left to us 10's of thousands of years ago, all thanks to this man. Show some respect.

Answer 7

I have gone through this many times in the last few years. He is correct. All the numbers he comes up with are derived from basic constants. If an object is not precisely where he says it is, then that s where is was intended to be. He has come up with the original plan. objects may have been incorrectly placed, or they may have moved. The earth s crust does move. Clearly the plan is solid, so we may be able to use it to find movements that have occurred. I particularly like the checks that are left in the fractions of a second. Another interesting check is found in the Bent Pyramid where he multiplies it s 360 degrees by 8 faces and 9 points to get 25920. then as a check the height of the first section turns out to be the square root of 25920 in feet. As he says pretty solid stuff.

Answer 8

Funny thing: what lead me to Carl Munck's work was based on my own findings through using a combo of cad software, google earth, and a visual grid generator.



I created 3D models for marking various ancient megalithic sites, and their locations seemed to form patterns as they were added to the globe ...in very precise ways —and without using measurements. Instead, I was simply scaling geometries about a fixed anchor point for each —which begins to speak is something pretty interesting, in that Munk's work is somewhat similar, based on radians, degrees, ratios and mathematical constants, more so than feet and inches —important to note that the scaling was Baer in constants, so what may sreem arbitrary actually follows a consistent set of strict rules.



Anyway, try it for yourself! Connect 3 sites, build out the resulting geometry as a grid, and like Munk, be sure to recalibrate the prime meridian to the pyramid at Giza —you'll probably find several sites for perfectly into that grid

Answer 9

Any half competent mathematician can debunk Carl Munck. His work on Stonehenge is laughable in that it is factually wrong in his estimation of the stones etc. and he doesn't seem to know that the Cartesian system wasn't invented until the 17th century by Rene Descartes, several thousand years after the stones were erected. Yes, there is an astronomical element to the building of Stonehenge, but there is to most ancient structures because it is easier to have a point of reference when constructing them. Also, Stonehenge was not built as a unit, but in several stages of a period of hundreds of years. Numerology, while fun to play with, is useless at divining anything. Numbers can be made to mean anything if you are selective enough, and people like him are certainly selective. They pick the things that have the closest fit with their ideas but totally disregard anything that doesn't. Likewise, his claims for other ancient structures do not stand up to scrutiny. There were several attempts to build early pyramids that failed, and some can still be seen. The Giza Plateau is littered with remains with no particular alignment, but these are ignored because they don't fit with his theories. This is a common technique used, maybe unwittingly, by fringe thinkers like Munck but which is easily spotted by anyone less convinced of his cleverness. Incidentally, the reason there are 360 degrees in a circle is that it divides equally many ways, making it quite accurate. The metric system uses an angular measurement called a mil, of which there are 6,400 in a circle, making it an even more accurate system, so there is another set of figures for you to play with. As a rough guide, 17.7 mils equals one degree. The 17.7 is recurring, so you should have some fun trying to make them fit!

Answer 10

I dont know the man but one thing I can say.. I have done years researching the measures of the Great Pyramid in Giza and I can say that the number sequence 216 comes up an amazing number of times in ancient geometry, etc..... Something else too... a cube measuring 6 on a side has a volume numerically equal to its area, namely 216. The diameter of the Moon is 2160 miles... the number of years in an age is 2160...In fact it appears that the measuring system of miles and feet, etc., is very ancient, was known in ancient Egypt, and was worked out with a great insight .

Answer 11

2

Answer 12

This Site Might Help You.



RE:

Can you debunk Carl Munck?

Please use math examples :) "he's a nut" or "pyramidiots all!" don't count. Sure, he's a nut and EVERYTHING he says might not be true, but he appears to be onto something legitimate. eg. Number of stones in the original stonehenge circle (60) x number of degrees in a...

Answer 13

Before you claim you have debunked him by only considering Stonehenge, you should go through his work: 6 hours videos (the code), read his books. And when you done, if you are still not convinced, then review your brain; you have one bolt missing

Answer 14

There may be a problem with all of these calculations...there is some recent evidence that the one side of Stonehenge (near the southern causeway) may have been left open! ie it wouldn't have been a continuous circle!